Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:03 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:49 am
So...my view is that if you want to influence people you should change your presentation and make it more understandable for the people you want to influence.

I'm one of the few people here willing to discuss anything of what you bring here.....why not reply to my post asking for your views on the significance of what you posted?....just a suggestion.
chownah, I intend to get back to you on several points but I needed to do some more reading and get my thoughts together better. That took some time. You think my writing is hard to understand ... try reading academic science literature.

Because of your questions I realized that I had made a mistake and needed to figure out what happened and then decide how to move forward.
And thank you. I find your feedback useful, valuable even. It is appreciated on my end and I am making use of it.
(ok, I would be happier with different expressions. For instance: diatribe --> "posts" / shame on you, I can't believe ... --> I strongly disagree)

----------------------

QUESTION
When you pose one of your questions and I'm not able to get to it right away would you like me to send you a note acknowledging your question ... that I will respond in due order?


-------------------------
Regarding the posts labeled as "Notes" -- maybe I assumed their purpose as lose notes would be obvious.
Perhaps a clearer explanation in the first line would be in order:
Header for NOTES postings wrote: DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME reading this unless you want to see someone else's notes about possible posts in progress. If this information doesn't make sense to you please ignore this posting.
I offer this in part as a service to other writers -- It's often helpful and interesting when some else has tracked down various sources and URLs and made notes on the interesting bits.

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:19 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:03 am
chownah, I intend to get back to you on several points but I needed to do some more reading and get my thoughts together better. That took some time.
Take your time. There is no need to hurry. I'm here almost every day.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:03 am
QUESTION
When you pose one of your questions and I'm not able to get to it right away would you like me to send you a note acknowledging your question ... that I will respond in due order?
Only if you want to....if I seem impatient then tell me to calm down.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:03 am
Regarding the posts labeled as "Notes" -- maybe I assumed their purpose as lose notes
I did not understand what the "notes" thing meant. Frankly, I don't think anyone pays any attention to the headers. It looks like you are wanting to use your posts as your work space which I think is inappropriate as it clutters up the forum with garbage (garbage=other peoples work in progress not really meant for public viewing).
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: History of Landfalling Cyclones, Typhoons & Hurricanes

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:41 pm

In a previous post I quoted the following summary from the most recent IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) report:
IPCC Report -Technical Summary of Changes in Extremes wrote:Technical Summary TS.2.7 Changes in Extremes, TS.2.7.1 Atmosphere
Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone [hurricane] activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated (see TFE.9). There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms. {2.6.2–2.6.4}
-- AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (TS), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
In a follow up post I showed charts from the same report showing historical records going back about 150 years of landfalling tropical cyclones for Eastern Astralia, US and China. I showed the charts and the entire caption. I then wrote:
"Do you see the trend? Don't strain your eyes, I don't either."
chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:29 am
I couldn't believe you posted this. You are suggesting to people that they can look at a graph and visually detect whatever statistically significant trends might be there.....shame on you.....this is like trump saying that the cold weather in the usa's northlands clearly shows that global warming is a scam.......I can't believe you posted this.
chownah
I take a general point that people should be careful to question whether or not trends are statistically significant. The general advise is to read and consider all captions and other accompanying texts. But can a reader look at a graph and visually detect whatever statistically significant trends might be there. Yes! Especially when the graph is well designed. That is why science papers and the IPCC reports has them.

But the matter should be considered on a case by case basis. This graph is well designed. The data is normalized, 5-year running means. The vertical axis is in standard deviations - a measure of statistical significance. The graphs show waves or periods of increasing or decreasing activity. Although the text in that section does mpt say so, hurricane activity does rise and fall in patterns, many coinciding with natural variations such as ENSO (El Nino) and other large scale cycles.
Conclusion: The text in the report supports what an ordinary person can see in the charts. The chart is designed so you can visually detect treads and not be fooled with small, statistically insignificant ones. No tricks. Nothing to be ashamed about. No 'fake news'.

chownah complains that I "pound away" at a single point -- but now complains that instead of showing a chart which explains a lot chownah seems to complain that I didn't "pound away" enough!

The lack of clear evidence of change in various types of extreme weather (hurricanes, cycles, typhoons in this case) comes as a surprise to many people. A bizarre aspect of this this topic is just how many inconvenient truths there are and how just about all of us, myself included, are almost certainly blind to some of them.

I am only speaking here about the detection of observed and measured trends in actual weather reports. Nothing here is based on climate simulations (models) or projections about future climate. There is a place for those but everything needs to be grounded in "objective" observations.

There is little scientific basis in support of claims that extreme weather events – specifically, hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes – and their economic damage have noticeably increased in recent decades due to climate change. (Economic damage goes up with the number and increasing costs of buildings in vulnerable areas. Worldwide populations are shifting to, or growing fastest on, the coasts.) In one region of the world extreme weather of one type gets worse, in another regions it gets better. On balance globally there is little to no change. In many cases older data is of lower quality or missing so precise comparisons cannot be made. We either can't be sure or there is little to no change. That's a bit surprising to me but there it is.

The most recent IPCC and the broader peer reviewed literature either does not report evidence of increasing frequency or the literature is contradictory. To my knowledge that conclusion still holds as of Jan. 2018.

The IPCC on Changes in Tropical Cyclones, Hurricanes and Typhones
I've included some explanatory comments in [square brackets].
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
IPCC AR5 WG1 - section 2.6.3 Tropical Storms wrote: it is difficult to draw firm conclusions with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends prior to the satellite era and in ocean basins outside of the North Atlantic.

... Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010). [Modern land, aircraft, and satellite based instruments since WWII are much better than older records]
Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al. 2007) (very high confidence). However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated (Landsea et al., 2006; Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b) with different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the record providing mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007a; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008, 2011). ["fidelity"=accuracy of older readings and records | longer time scales=again older readings and records. | "undercounts"=it's assumed that the older records miss a lot so scientists used best estimates to fill in the missing data.]
No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.
Measures of land-falling tropical cyclone frequency (Figure 2.34) are generally considered to be more reliable than counts of all storms which tend to be strongly influenced by those that are weak and/or short lived. [That is the graph I showed. Using just the land-falling reports allows us to make apples-to-apples comparisons with the older records.]
Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval).
Significant trends are not found in other oceans on shorter time scales (Chan and Xu, 2009; Kubota and Chan, 2009; Mohapatra et al., 2011; Weinkle et al., 2012), although Grinsted et al. (2012) find a signifiant positive trend in eastern USA using tide-guage data from 1923–2008 as a proxy for storm surges associated with land-falling hurricanes. Differences between tropical cyclone studies highlight the challenges that still lie ahead in assessing long-term trends.

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:07 pm

For those not understanding what this "Extreme event attribution " thingy is that we have been discussing, here is a scientific american article which talks about it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... te-change/
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:15 pm

Please take note that my most recent post was not about event attribution studies such as discussed in the ClimateWire/GreenWire article reprinted in Scientific American. The sections of the IPCC report quoted only explored the detection of observed and measured trends in actual weather reports. A number of prominent people have said things about extreme weather that is not supported by what I read in the IPCC reports and overall in the science literature. I think just about everyone can be accused of being a "science denier" by someone's definition -- which is one reason I avoid that label except in scare quotes.

There have been 5 IPCC reports and the 6th is ramping up. The idea of these integrated assessment reports is to review all the literature and the follow on critiques and attempt to integrate and assess them as a whole. Between these reports new papers come out. As the scientific literature expands many have their predictions about what the next report will say. In other words "if they were to write the report today it would say ...". I expect the next IPCC report will be a mixed bag with some support for lukewarmers and warmer positions.

I've received some general indications that the latest US national assessment mostly confirms the IPCC report on the question of extreme weather detection -- it's still mostly temperature events and extreme precipitation events. I haven't looked yet. Too busy.
Just the literature on observations in Antarctica or about hurricanes that was published in 2017 takes hours just to read and interpret the highlights -- just the abstract and conclusion sections. I'm a fan of arctic and antarctic exploration stories. Antarctic temperatures are not doing what climate models say they should. The planet is not cooperating with those who want it to tell a simple, unconflicted story. Kinda of like my meditation practice sometimes.
---------------------------------

With governments wanting to shut down operating, carbon free nuclear power plants that provide electricity when solar and wind don't ... I can't but question what people who support this mean when they also talk of climate change as the most serious threat facing mankind. Or calls to follow the scientific consensus when the consensus, the majority of climate scientists, other scientists, engineers and risk analyst support nuclear for the next 50 years. Or the claim that it's clear that we can power everything with renewables -- when the one thing that is clear is the huge disagreement about costs, environmental impacts, availability of raw materials and CO2 emissions required to build all that infrastructure. This may help explain why we don't talk more about what we, as citizens, should be asking our governments to do.
I recommend this video by the well known climate scientist James Hansen
James Hansen & Michael Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough? 24 min


There is also 2010 Nuclear power: the energy crisis has even die-hard environmentalists reconsidering it. In this first-ever TED debate, Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson square off over the pros and cons. 26 min.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:44 pm

You want extreme weather? Here's some, heading for the eastern US:
Much of the eastern United States has been assaulted by brutally cold temperatures over the last week. New Year’s Eve revelers in New York City rang in 2018 in 9 degree weather—the coldest midnight temperature since 1907.

And the worst is yet to come.

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that a “bomb cyclone” is expected to batter the East Coast later this week. A weather system only earns that name by dropping in pressure rapidly—at least 24 millibars over 24 hours—in a process called bombogenesis. Winds could kick up to 55 mph just off the coast of New England, a prospect that has prompted local weather stations to warn of hurricane-force winds. ...

But the snow won’t be limited to northern states. As far south as Georgia and Florida, forecasters are calling for potentially dangerous winter weather, with several inches of snow in some areas. ...

The bomb cyclone is expected to leave bone-chilling cold in its wake—even colder than the last few weeks. Temperatures will likely drop 20 to 40 degrees below normal, the Washington Post reports. That means sub-zero in nearly all of New England—and lows reaching down into the 20s, if you can believe it, in Florida.
:reading: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... b-cyclone/

In line with my KISS approach:
This is not normal.
There have been more not-normal weather events than we would expect in the last few years.
Is there a credible explanation for how many records are being broken? Yes, climate change.
Does climate science support this attribution? Yes.
Can it show the mechanisms? Yes.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it most likely is a duck.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:45 am

Kim OHara, OK keeping it simple boss!
Does this description of weather in the US seem right to you?
  • Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century.
  • The frequency of cold waves has fallen over the past century.
  • The frequency of intense cold waves peaked in the 1980s and reached record-low levels in the 2000s.
  • The coldest daily temperature of the year has increased at most locations in the contiguous United States.
  • The temperature of extremely cold days (1-in-10 year events) generally follows the the same pattern as above.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:48 am

Greetings Kim,
Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:44 pm
You want extreme weather? Here's some, heading for the eastern US:
Much of the eastern United States has been assaulted by brutally cold temperatures over the last week. New Year’s Eve revelers in New York City rang in 2018 in 9 degree weather—the coldest midnight temperature since 1907.

And the worst is yet to come.

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that a “bomb cyclone” is expected to batter the East Coast later this week. A weather system only earns that name by dropping in pressure rapidly—at least 24 millibars over 24 hours—in a process called bombogenesis. Winds could kick up to 55 mph just off the coast of New England, a prospect that has prompted local weather stations to warn of hurricane-force winds. ...

But the snow won’t be limited to northern states. As far south as Georgia and Florida, forecasters are calling for potentially dangerous winter weather, with several inches of snow in some areas. ...

The bomb cyclone is expected to leave bone-chilling cold in its wake—even colder than the last few weeks. Temperatures will likely drop 20 to 40 degrees below normal, the Washington Post reports. That means sub-zero in nearly all of New England—and lows reaching down into the 20s, if you can believe it, in Florida.
:reading: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... b-cyclone/

In line with my KISS approach:
I thought this was your approach.

Seems your attitude to Global Warming has changed in the last 5 years!

:tongue:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by alan » Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:14 am

Any society that is smart enough to figure out that their planet is in peril, but also has a lot of stupid people who deny science, will probably not survive.
Too bad we appear to one of those.

pulga
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by pulga » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:16 am

This link is liable to irk some people but Michael Savage is concerned about climate change and wildlife preservation, and fortunately he was able to voice these concerns face to face with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago over dinner recently during the holidays.

Michael Savage tells about his recent meeting with President Donald Trump

The part pertaining to the environment and wildlife starts at roughly 6:30. I'm sure Dr. Savage is going to be pushing his causes to his listeners with his usual zeal for some time to come, which of course is a good thing.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:33 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:48 am
Greetings Kim,
Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:44 pm
You want extreme weather? ..

In line with my KISS approach:
I thought this was your approach.

Seems your attitude to Global Warming has changed in the last 5 years!

:tongue:

Metta,
Paul. :)
No change.

KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Which is what I did in the post you linked to:
Kim OHara wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:51 am
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Global Cooling or Global Warming, Which Is It?:
Global Warming. No argument, no possibility of a mistake.
I will get back soon with evidence ... no time now.

:namaste:
Kim
Anyone paying attention knew enough about it five years ago to keep it that simple. We do know more now, but it hasn't changed the issues substantially. Global warming is still on track to cause untold suffering through sea-level rise, desertification and extreme weather events, and the only way of reducing these impacts is still by cutting carbon emissions asap.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:30 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:45 am
Kim OHara, OK keeping it simple
:thumbsup:
boss!
:thinking:
No thanks. I'll take it as a compliment but don't want the reponsibility. :tongue:
Does this description of weather in the US seem right to you?
  • Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century.
  • The frequency of cold waves has fallen over the past century.
  • The frequency of intense cold waves peaked in the 1980s and reached record-low levels in the 2000s.
  • The coldest daily temperature of the year has increased at most locations in the contiguous United States.
  • The temperature of extremely cold days (1-in-10 year events) generally follows the the same pattern as above.
I really don't know how accurate those statements are. I live at the other end of the world and don't pay a lot of attention to US weather. Also, the US is big enough that statements which apply to one bit don't apply to others.
Just on general principles, I think your first statement is correct, the next two are poorly phrased (slightly ambiguous), and the last two are probably correct. But if I wanted to be sure, I would find the data from NOAA, NASA or your equivalent of our Bureau of Meteorology, e.g. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/?r ... timeseries.
This page - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-infor ... nformation - seems to have the US data but I will leave it to you to explore.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:34 am

pulga wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:16 am
This link is liable to irk some people but Michael Savage is concerned about climate change and wildlife preservation, and fortunately he was able to voice these concerns face to face with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago over dinner recently during the holidays.

Michael Savage tells about his recent meeting with President Donald Trump

The part pertaining to the environment and wildlife starts at roughly 6:30. I'm sure Dr. Savage is going to be pushing his causes to his listeners with his usual zeal for some time to come, which of course is a good thing.
That would be this - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michael_Savage - Michael Savage, Pulga?

:thinking:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Global Temperature for 2017

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:49 am

Global Temperature Report for 2017: Jan 3, 2018
2017 was third warmest year in satellite record
Globally averaged, 2017 was the third warmest year in the 39-year satellite temperature record.
What are Satellite Measurements?
* The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.
* These measures are different from Land Surface Temperatures (LST) and Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) which are taken about 1 meter from the land or sea surface. Some differences between LST or SST and atmospheric temperatures are to be expected.
* The satellite coverage is of the entire globe, over land and sea, all exception for the last 5 degrees at the poles. The coverage includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
* Global coverage: takes about 1 day to scan the entire global atmosphere.
* The satellite temperature readings correspond well to weather balloon measurements.
_________________________________________________________________
The following temps are reported as anomalies -- a amount above or below a baseline. For this record the baseline for all temperature anomalies are the 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.

Warmest years (global) 1979 to 2017
2016 +0.513 C
1998 +0.484 C
2017 +0.375 C
2010 +0.336 C

The annual average temperature in the lower troposphere over the globe in 2017 was 0.375 C (about 0.67 degrees
Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30 year average (1981-2010).


Since the satellite-based global temperature record began in November 1978, the fastest warming region on Earth has been around the North Pole. The troposphere over the Arctic Ocean has warmed at the rate of 0.28 C per decade, or more than twice the global rate of warming. By comparison, the troposphere over Antarctic continent is warming at the rate of about 0.07 C per decade, while the air above the ocean around the Antarctic is cooling about 0.04 C per decade.

The continental U.S. (both contiguous 48 and the continental 49) have been warming at the rate of about 0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees F) per decade. That means that in the 39 years since satellite instruments started collecting atmospheric temperature data, the air temperature above the U.S. has warmed an average of about 1.25 degrees Fahrenheit.

Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest spot on the globe in December was near Timmins, in eastern Ontario. Temperatures there were 3.51 C (about 6.32 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest place on Earth in December was near Qambo, in the Eastern Tibet autonomous region of China. Tropospheric temperatures there averaged 5.27 C (about 9.49 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.

All funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

Press Release: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/ ... EC2017.pdf

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:37 am

:thanks:
This page https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/ doesn't have 2017 data but makes up for it by having a neat visualisation tool.
It might be worth emphasising that its figures are all relative to the 1951-1980 average, which is already substantially warmer than the period before 1930. That's why the map starts out with negative (cold) anomalies.
Yours, Leeuwenhoek2, take 1981-2010 as the baseline so the absolute anomalies look smaller. The pattern, however, is exactly the same.

:namaste:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests